The Tinkers Win Battle for Free Speech

The children who were punished for wearing black armbands in support for a truce in Vietnam won their Supreme Court battle against the Des Moines Independent Community School District. The court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of the Tinkers on February 24, 1969.

Last December, a group of adults and students held a meeting in the Des Moines, Iowa home of the Eckhardts. The purpose of this meeting was to express dissent for U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and plan to publicize that dissent. This group decided to do so by wearing black armbands in support of a truce, which several of the children chose to join in with. John F. Tinker, 15 years old, Christopher Eckhardt, 16 years old, and Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, all decided to wear the black armbands to school.

The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of this plan and adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it or otherwise be suspended until he or she returned without the armband.

In the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, presented by Justice Abe Fortas, it is stated that, "On December 16, Mary Beth and Christopher wore black armbands to their schools. John Tinker wore his armband the next day. They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their armbands. They did not return to school until after the planned period for wearing armbands had expired -- that is, until after New Year's Day.”

Thus came the question of whether or not students should be allowed free speech and freedom of expression in public schools. The children who wore the armbands and their parents believed that their Constitutional rights had been violated by being forced to either remove the armbands or otherwise be suspended.

There was some discussion into whether or not the students' wearing of the armbands disrupted the learning of others. Had this been the case, the Tinkers would have lost to the Des Moines Schools. When they were at school, none of the students wearing the armbands made any sort of demonstrations or speeches that would have distracted other children. Because of this, Fortas stated, "Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students."

“First Amendment rights," stated Justice Fortas, "applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.”

Fortas continued, "The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners."

The cases referenced in making this decision included as follows:

Meyer v. Nebraska

Bartels v. Iowa

West Virginia v. Barnette

McCollum v. Board of Education

Wieman v. Updegraff

Sweezy v. New Hampshire

Shelton v. Tucker

Engel v. Vitale

Keyishian v. Board of Regents

Epperson v. Arkansas

Terminiello v. Chicago

Burnside v. Byars

Due to these cases, and deliberation between all parties, the majority opinion stated that “In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school, as well as out of school, are "persons" under our Constitution."

Two Justices, Potter Stewart and Byron R. White, concurred to the majority opinion.

Justice Stewart said, " “I cannot share the Court's uncritical assumption that, school discipline aside, the First Amendment rights of children are coextensive with those of adults.”

While he agreed overall, Stewart felt that there should be some limitations to children's rights that may not apply to adults.

Because he disagreed with the decision of one of the cases referenced, Justice White had a reservation about agreeing with the majority opinion for this case. He did agree, but said, "I deem it appropriate to note, first, that the Court continues to recognize a distinction between communicating by words and communicating by acts or conduct which sufficiently impinges on some valid state interest; and, second, that I do not subscribe to everything the Court of Appeals said about free speech in its opinion in Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744, 748 (C.A. 5th Cir.1966), a case relied upon by the Court in the matter now before us."

Two Justices, Hugo L. Black, and John M. Harlan, dissented the majority opinion.

Justice Black stated, "While I have always believed that, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, neither the State nor the Federal Government has any authority to regulate or censor the content of speech, I have never believed that any person has a right to give speeches or engage in demonstrations where he pleases and when he pleases."

He also said, "In Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 554 (1965), for example, the Court clearly stated that the rights of free speech and assembly "do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time."

Black meant that while free speech is a right, there is a time and place for everything, and he didn't believe that school was the right place for the children to express their political views.

Justice Harlan said, "I am reluctant to believe that there is any disagreement between the majority and myself on the proposition that school officials should be accorded the widest authority in maintaining discipline and good order in their institutions."

Harlan's opinion was that if the school officials successfully passed a policy to stop the students from wearing black armbands, then their authority shouldn't have been questioned.

However, the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Des Moines schools were wrong in creating that policy, and that the students had every right to wear the armbands. They were allowed to peacefully protest and show their opinion without disrupting the learning environment of other students, and their rights under the First Amendment were upheld.